Re: [Autoconf] Discussion on link types and status of documents

[Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>]

Charles E. Perkins wrote:
> 
> Hello Alex,
> 
> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Shubhranshu wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> I agree that defining term "MANET link" is not appropriate but I 
>>> do not see any point in listing all the links on which MANET has 
>>> been run.
>>> 
>> 
>> How would one otherwise start describing link types?
>> 
> 
> I think of them as links over which IP can be run.  There is no prior
>  restriction that they must run only protocols defined in [manet] wg,
>  or [dhc] wg for that matter. There is no prior restriction that the 
> addresses used by IP over these links must be able to be aggregated 
> into contiguous address ranges.
> 
> 
>> If one understands link types the way people having deployed ND and
>>  DHCP understood link types then one wouldn't see a problem in 
>> running ND and DHCP on the link types on which MANET runs.
>> 
> 
> One can certainly run IP over a link without being required to also 
> run DHCP and/or ND.  IP was around for a long time before those two 
> protocols.
> 
> Moreover, I am sure that we can have useful networks running various
>  manet protocols that do not run DHCP or ND.  Of course, as Joe
> Macker pointed out quite forcefully at the autoconf meeting, we can 
> certainly have manets that DO run DHCP (and, presumably, ND).
> 
> I'd be very, very surprised and unhappy if someone were able to 
> legislate that manets were REQUIRED to run DHCP or ND.

Right, not trying to mandate DHCP/ND.  It's just that they're always
there on in many unix systems and one may have a hard time turning them off.

> My own opinion is that there are many instances in which it is not at
>  all appropriate to run DHCP (as currently specified), and that these
>  instances are more common percentagewise, perhaps even predominant, 
> in mobile ad-hoc networks.  Which in no way implies that one should 
> not consider DHCP when appropriate!
> 
> Maybe instead of arguing over link types, it would be better to have 
> a task force making a report about when DHCP is appropriate, and let 
> the working group get on with other useful work.

I'm trying to identify the overall goals and scope in AUTOCONF.  Not
sure about a separate task force at this time.  I'm having the feeling
that much discussion is already happening behind the AUTOCONF scenes and
very little at the forefront, in my perception.

HEre and now, the size of room for progress is proportional to the gap
between what's stated at the meeting/mailing list and what's stated in
the documents.

This is in my humble opinion.

Alex


______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf